For non-Chinese journalists, in Africa and elsewhere, working for Chinese state-run media offers generous remuneration and new opportunities. When CCTV launched its Washington headquarters in 2012, no fewer than five former or current BBC correspondents based in Latin America joined the broadcaster. One of them, Daniel Schweimler, who is now at al-Jazeera, said his experience there was fun and relatively trouble-free, though he didnt think many people actually saw his stories.

But foreign journalists working at Xinhua, the state-run news agency, see their stories reaching much larger audiences. Government subsidies cover around 40% of Xinhuas costs, and it generates income  like other news agencies, such as the Associated Press  by selling stories to newspapers around the world. My stories were not seen by 1 million people. They were seen by 100 million people, boasted one former Xinhua employee. (Like most of the dozens of people we interviewed, he requested anonymity to speak freely, citing fear of retribution.) Xinhua was set up in 1931, well before the Communists took power in China, and as the party mouthpiece, its jargon-laden articles are used to propagate new directives and explain shifts in party policy. Many column inches are also spent on the ponderous speeches and daily movements of Xi Jinping, whether he is meeting the Togolese president, examining oversized vegetables or casually chatting to workers at a toy-mouse factory.

Describing his work at Xinhua, the former employee said: Youve got to think its like creative writing. Youre combining journalism with a kind of creative writing. Another former employee, Christian Claye Edwards, who worked for Xinhua news agency in Sydney between 2010 and 2014, says: Their objectives were ... to push a distinctly Chinese agenda. He continued: Theres no clear goal other than to identify cracks in a system and exploit them.

an article in the FT about 10 years ago...... A German businessman set up shop in China and hired locals to help him run the business. After about six months, he came to work one day only to discover he was fully cleaned out. No cash anywhere, all the books and inventory gone.

His employees had figured out how his business worked, started their own business within his business, siphoned off the cash and profits and took him hook, line and sinker.

When the locals were asked why they did it, they said it was simple..."he was a foreigner, and he deserved it."

I agree with the sentiment expressed by the author, and yet I find myself often amazed at the even-handedness shown in the CGTN/CCTV documentaries about the Sino-Japanese wars, and the Second World War, even though we all know how brutal the Japanese acted towards the “lesser races” during those conflicts.

Even the stories about Chiang Kai-Shek paint him and his armies as honorable foes, at least in the episodes I have watched.

It is strange to know the type of regime that is running China and yet see less strident propaganda than expected coming from there.

[I find myself often amazed at the even-handedness shown in the CGTN/CCTV documentaries about the Sino-Japanese wars, and the Second World War, even though we all know how brutal the Japanese acted towards the lesser races during those conflicts.]

I expect that’s in English only, because it’s made for a foreign audience with alternate information sources. As to brutality, Japan wasn’t particularly brutal, historically-speaking and it shows in the body count. The highest number the Chinese could come up with was a body count of perhaps 20m people out of 400m, and that figure includes death by starvation, disease, etc (i.e. Four Horsemen-type casualties incurred as a byproduct of war). It’s estimated that other, successful dynastic changes, including by foreign invasion, have in the past killed off half the population (or more). It’s not even particularly a Japanese or Chinese thing - during the 100 Years War, the French population dropped in half.

And the “race” thing is an anachronism. The Japanese had nothing along the lines of Hitler’s race-based extermination plans. Everywhere the Japanese ruled - conquered subjects that did not conduct attacks against Japanese rule were left alone, whereas rebels were slaughtered, and this included entire villages that may have sheltered them, in keeping with traditional practices of collective punishment. Key postwar Asian leaders served as part of the colonial Japanese administration - names like Aung San, Park Chung-hee, Sukarno, Suharto and Lee Kuan Yew all had junior positions that might have grown into more responsible roles, had Japan prevailed in WWII.

Japan’s policy was akin to the practice in the Far East - the annihilation of rebels along with their civilian supporters. You know how we say it’s better to let 100 men go free than to convict 1 innocent man? Absolute rulers, whose relationship with their subjects is essentially the equivalent of a farmer’s relationship with his working animals, have a different perspective. From their standpoint, it is better to kill 100 innocent men than to let 1 rebel go free.

To the extent they thought of humanitarian concerns, those concerns were directed towards the welfare of their men. Better to let 100 enemy civilians die than to lose 1 soldier who had pledged his fealty, from insurgent attacks. That is the meaning of Mao’s elimination of millions of property owners before, during, and after his complete victory over the Nationalists. And in killing large numbers of perceived threats to his continued rule, he was little different from the emperors who ruled before him.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_of_landlords_under_Mao_Zedonghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangzhou_massacre

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP3.HTM
[in the eight years that the Han Dynasty was being replaced by the Qin Dynasty 221-207B.C., the population of China decreased from 20 million to 10 million.
. . . .
In the Dong (Eastern) Han Dynasty 206B.C.-220A.D., the population of China was 50 million. After the transition of power to the Three Kingdom period 222-589, the population decreased to 7 million.
. . . .
In the Sui Dynasty 581-618, the population of China was 50 million. After the transfer of power to the Tang Dynasty 618-907, only one third was left.
. . . .
At the peak of the Song Dynasty 960-1279 the population was about 100 million. But in the beginning of the Qing Dynasty in 1655, the population was 14,033,900. During the 20 year period from 1626 to 1655, the population decreased from 51,655,459 to 14,033,900.34]

4
posted on 12/08/2018 12:52:07 AM PST
by Zhang Fei
(They can have my pitbull when they pry his cold dead jaws off my ass.)

[Mao and his henchmen added brainwashing (Ed Hunter via publishers)(thought reform - Lifton) as a national policy of indoctrination, and in reeducation camps which became killing fields for millions.

The same with slave labor and slave labor type policies - The Blue Ants - Guillaume.

No question that by modern Western standards, Mao was brutal. But if you judge him by the standards of Chinese rulers, he was just one in a long line of ruthless emperors and not even the most brutal one, based on the % of the population that died under his rule. The Chinese can thank the USAF for whacking his only non-defective son, thereby forestalling the creation of a hereditary dynasty like the one ruling North Korea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Anying

6
posted on 12/08/2018 2:00:04 AM PST
by Zhang Fei
(They can have my pitbull when they pry his cold dead jaws off my ass.)

I agree to a certain extent but in my life time I’ve lost family to Hitler, father-in-law wounded 3 times in the Pacific campaigns (Iwo Jima), met former Red Guards who told of wholesale slaughter between Hung Wei Ping (Red Guards) in the cities, and had to comfort the sister of an American pilot shot down (in an unarmed plane) most likely captured and then “disappeared” forever (off of Hainan Island).

Mao tops them all, including Stalin/Beria who were masters of torture and mass murder, just like Mengele (my late friends sister died in Auschwitz and the only reason both weren’t experimented on was because while they looked alike, they were not twins).

Mao was more educated than most Chinese historical leaders yet he turned his country and a lot of Asia into the biggest graveyard in modern history, if not all of history.

China had so much to offer the world yet its main product has been an ideology of death beyond belief.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.